[Will]

Sorry, Bubb. Had to be away from the desk for a while. Since I'm not a civil engineer or a KDOT administrator, I can't cite chapter and verse, but the way it was explained to me (by a competent authority who had talked to KDOT) was that building a 2nd exit within so many hundred yards of an existing signal that controls a state highway intersection, whether or not its junction was on that highway or an adjacent frontage, violated KDOT regs. I think traffic count also figures into that formula and there was maybe an insurance issue for 443. (That's right. The actuarial tables count the single entrance/exit as a lesser liability.) Again, I'm not the expert, but those issues can be raised with and answered by the authorities involved. If a critical mass of public interest is generated, there are also processes to re-open formal hearings, petition, referendum, etc, which is a pain in the a** unless folks believe that the end result is worth it.